National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program Reauthorization Act of 2025
- Sponsor
- Rep. Valadao, David G. [R-CA-22]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 21, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to modernize and strengthen the nation's earthquake preparedness and response capabilities by enhancing early warning systems, improving infrastructure resilience standards, and fostering broader interagency and intergovernmental coordination.
What it actually does
This bill reauthorizes the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) for five fiscal years (FY2026-2030) at an annual authorization level of $83.4 million, with a significant portion dedicated to the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS). It expands the program's scope to explicitly include Tribal governments, introduces 'functional recovery' objectives for buildings and infrastructure, mandates tsunami susceptibility mapping, and enhances coordination with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) for timely, multi-language earthquake early warning broadcasts.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that reauthorizing NEHRP is crucial for protecting lives and property, especially in earthquake-prone regions. They emphasize that the bill's updates, such as incorporating 'functional recovery' objectives and expanding early warning systems, will lead to more resilient communities and faster post-earthquake recovery, reducing economic disruption and human suffering. The inclusion of Tribal governments and multi-language alerts ensures equitable access to critical safety information.
Opponents contend
Critics, if any, might argue that while earthquake preparedness is important, the proposed funding levels could be excessive or that the program's expansion into new areas like 'functional recovery' or enhanced FCC coordination might lead to bureaucratic inefficiencies or cost overruns without clear, measurable benefits. Some might also question the allocation of $30 million annually specifically for ANSS completion, suggesting other NEHRP components might be underfunded.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick and informed review by interested parties.
Section 2(a)(1), (2), (3), (4) and 2(d)(2), 2(e)(1), 2(e)(4)(G)
Expanding NEHRP Scope to Tribal Governments and Functional Recovery
This provision updates the core activities of the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) to explicitly include Tribal governments in planning, response, and mitigation efforts. It also broadens the program's focus beyond just 'constructing' to 'designing, constructing, evaluating, and retrofitting' infrastructure. Crucially, it introduces 'post-earthquake recovery-based performance objectives' and 'functional recovery' as key goals for buildings, structures, and lifeline infrastructure, aiming to minimize downtime after an earthquake. It also adds tsunami susceptibility mapping.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that explicitly including Tribal governments ensures a more comprehensive and equitable national preparedness strategy. The shift to 'functional recovery' is seen as a critical modernization, moving beyond mere structural integrity to ensuring communities can quickly resume essential services and daily life after an event, which is vital for economic stability and public well-being.
Critics contend
No specific opposition is typically raised against including Tribal governments or improving resilience standards, as these are generally seen as beneficial. Potential concerns might arise if the new standards are perceived as overly burdensome or costly for developers and infrastructure owners without sufficient federal support.
Tradeoffs
The primary tension lies in balancing the desire for higher resilience standards with the potential increased costs for design, construction, and retrofitting. While functional recovery is a desirable goal, achieving it may require significant investment from both public and private sectors.
Section 2(b)(2), 2(e)(2), 2(e)(4)(E), 2(e)(4)(F), 2(e)(4)(G), 2(e)(5)
Enhanced Coordination for Earthquake Early Warning System and Emergency Alerts
This provision mandates enhanced coordination between the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction, the USGS, and the Chair of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). The goal is to ensure the timely, rapid, and reliable broadcasting of earthquake early warning alerts, including in predominant languages of affected regions. It also directs the USGS to expand the early warning system to additional high-risk areas and improve its detection capabilities and warning times, coordinating with State and Tribal governments.
Section 2(e)(4)(D), 2(e)(4)(H), 2(a)(4)(B)
Expanding USGS Role in Oceanic Hazards and Aftershock Forecasting
This provision directs the United States Geological Survey (USGS) to coordinate with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for data sharing and resource allocation related to oceanic earthquakes and tsunamis. It also mandates the USGS to issue earthquake forecasts for aftershocks associated with significant earthquakes in the United States when appropriate, and to include tsunami susceptibility in its mapping efforts.
Section 3
NEHRP Reauthorization and Advanced National Seismic System Funding
This section reauthorizes appropriations for the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977. It allocates $83,403,000 annually for fiscal years 2026 through 2030. Crucially, it specifies that for each of these fiscal years, not less than $30,000,000 of the total authorized amount shall be made available for the completion of the Advanced National Seismic System (ANSS).
Amends the duties of the Interagency Coordinating Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction to include 'associated secondary hazards' when coordinating activities related to earthquake hazard reduction.
Section 2(b)(1)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice for refining existing language rather than introducing a new, standalone concept. It expands the scope subtly.
Case for: Supporters would argue that explicitly including 'secondary hazards' (like landslides, liquefaction, or fires following an earthquake) ensures a more holistic and realistic approach to earthquake preparedness and response, preventing gaps in planning.
Case against: No specific opposition. Could be seen as a minor technical amendment.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it broadens the scope of planning and coordination for all NEHRP agencies to consider a wider range of post-earthquake threats.